My essay on The Eucharist

Hi, all. I wrote this essay in 3 parts for another Catholic forum.
I figure I'd share it here too.

I wrote it after arguing with non-Catholics, so the "style" of the essay is presenting objections to the Real Presence and my answers to those points.

******

The Eucharist
Part 1: Scriptures

"Transubstantiation isn't based on Scripture."

You've probably heard such statements as "The Eucharist is only a reminder of Jesus' Last Supper." or "The bread and wine is only symbolic of Jesus' Body and Blood." You may even have, or have had, the same thoughts yourself.

But, I was blessed to read a statement that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has nothing to do with Scriptures. (Which to me is like saying that the Law of Gravity has nothing to do with Newton's apple.)

What is "transubstantiation"? Well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V explains it succinctly.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring "... by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

and

1413 By the consecration the transubstantion of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

But allow me to be succinct in answering the charge that "transubstantiation isn't based on Scripture".

Yes, it is.

* Matthew 26:26-28 (New American Standard)
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;or this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

* Mark 14:22-24 (New American Standard)
While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body."
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

* Luke 22:19-20 (New American Standard)
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

* 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (New American Standard)
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.

Did you miss it?
Jesus picked up BREAD, and when he gave to the apostles he said, "This is my body".
He didn't say ANYTHING about bread. He didn't say "This bread represents my body" or "My body is like this bread" or "As you eat this bread think of me."

He said, "This is my body."

And he didn't explain what he meant as symbolic or as figurative.
He said it, and they ate.

"It's obvious that he was speaking symbolically because he was right there with them, so how could he be giving himself to them to eat?

What can be more "obvious" than "This is my body."?

The question, though, is HOW?

The answer is He said so.

**********

Recommended reading:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_communion.html

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist.html

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_communion.html
.

The Eucharist
Part 2: John 6's Bread of Life Discourse

"John 6 doesn't have anything to do with the Eucharist."

Say what?

John 6 quotes Jesus as saying that his flesh is real meat and his blood is real drink, and we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood. And that is what Catholics believe and do.
The Eucharist is the flesh and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus. (See my "Part 1: Scriptures" and the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
When we Catholics go to Holy Mass, we approach the altar for Holy Communion and the Priest, Deacon, or Eucharistic Minister says, "The Body of Christ." And we respond, "Amen." The Priest, Deacon, or Eucharistic Minister says "The Blood of Christ" and we say, "Amen."
Both John 6's Bread of Life Discourse and the Holy Eucharist are the issue of eating Jesus' Body and drinking His Blood.

"The events of John 6 happen before the events of the Last Supper, so John 6 doesn't refer to the Eucharist."

So none of the Bible refers to us today since the events of the Bible happened before now?

And kindly note that John 6:4 is hinting to the readers.
John 6:4 (New American Standard)
"Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near."
Compare that hint to the other Gospel accounts' chapters of the Last Supper: Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:1, Luke 22:1.

And notice in that same chapter, John 6, where Jesus speaks of His Ascension.
Yes, he did speak of events before they happened.

In short, John 6's Bread of Life Discourse has everything to do with the Eucharist.

"Jesus was speaking a metaphor. He was speaking symbolically, just like when he said 'I am the vine' and 'I am the door'"

I agree that he was speaking metaphorically when he said, "I am the vine", because he was not, and is not, LITERALLY a plant.

I agree that he was speaking metaphorically when he said, "I am the door", because he was not, and is not, LITERALLY a door with hinges and a knob.

AND, I agree that he was speaking metaphorically when he said, "I am the Bread", because he was not, and is not, LITERALLY dough.

Yet, he is the vine and we are the branches. He is the door, which we must enter through. And he is the bread which we are to eat.

Furthermore, "eat flesh" and "drink blood" had a symbolic meaning to the Jews of that time. It is "to persecute", "to do violence to" "to assault", "to murder".
(Psalm 27:12, Isaac 49:26, Micah 3:3, Revelation 17:6 and 17:16.)

If Jesus were intending his words to be understood as symbolism, as metaphoric, then THIS would have been what the Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum would have understood.

**

John 6: step by step

The chapter begins with Jesus feeding thousands miraculously.
And he walks on water miraculously.
And then it's the next day.

John 6:22- 23 (New American Standard)
The next day the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other small boat there, except one, and that Jesus had not entered with His disciples into the boat, but that His disciples had gone away alone.
There came other small boats from Tiberias near to the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.

Jesus fed them after he gave thanks. Reminds me of the accounts of the Last Supper.
(This is another hint for the readers.)

John 6:24-26 (New American Standard)
So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus.
When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, Rabbi, when did You get here?"
Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled."

"Truly, truly" as in "Amen, amen". It is so. It is so.
It's a fact. It's a fact.

John 6:27-29 (New American Standard)
"Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."
Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

We must believe in Him.
Does this mean even if we don't fully understand, even if we don't know the how of his words? Yes, we must believe in Him.

John 6:30-33 (New American Standard)
So they said to Him, "What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'"
Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
"For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."

The first thing Jesus said was "Truly truly", so we know who REALLY gave the manna, and who gives the true bread out of heaven.

John 6:34-42 (New American Standard)
Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread."
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
"But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven."
They were saying, " Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?"

They didn't take him literally to be dough when he said he was the bread of life.

But they sure did take him literally when he said he came down out of heaven.

John 6:42-47 (New American Standard)
They were saying, " Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?"
Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves.
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Truly, truly.

John 6:48-52 (New American Standard)
"I am the bread of life.
"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

Stop the presses!

Jesus said he was the bread from heaven. But the Jews realized he wasn't really dough. And the Jews had wondered how he could be from heaven, since they knew Joseph and Mary. Twice in the above, He reaffirmed that he came down from heaven LITERALLY.

And now (in verse 51), when he adds that the bread that he will give is his flesh, they take these words as literal too.

I'm going to post that question of verse 52 again, and Jesus' answer to it.
(Then I will do that again, but inserting my comments.)

John 6:52-59 (New American Standard)
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."
These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

How can He give us His flesh to eat?
Look what he said: "truly, truly", 5 times "eat", twice "drink", "true food", "true drink".

Look what He did NOT say:
"Let me explain what I mean by the bread is my flesh.[in verse 51]"
"You misunderstood me when I said that the bread is my flesh."
"You will symbolically eat my flesh when you actually eat bread."

Now, as I promised, I will repeat the question and Jesus' answer, while inserting my comments.

John 6:52-53 (New American Standard)
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

Truly, truly eat His flesh and drink His blood.
(or is this not meant to be taken literally? What is the obvious meaning of verse55?)

John 6:54-55 (New American Standard)
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will (86) raise him up on the last day.
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink".

True food, true drink. meat indeed, drink indeed.
(or is this not meant to be taken literally?)

"Alethes" is the Greek word which means "real", "true" "actual" and is also translated as "indeed" in some English Bible versions.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.html

John 6:56-59 (New American Standard)
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."
These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

"he who eats", "he who eats", "he who eats".
Can Jesus be any clearer?

The Greek word for "eat" in verses 54, 56, 57 and 58 is "trogo", which is a vivid word for "to eat" best translated as "to gnaw", "to much", "to chew".
(It is also used in Matt 24:38 and John 13:18 and is understood as literal eating.)

John 6:60-61 (New American Standard)
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"
But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?

Jesus isn't telling them his words are not meant to be taken literally.
He did not say, "You still do not understand my words."

John 6:62 (New American Standard)
"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

He tells them of a LITERAL, true, actual action that he will perform indeed.

John 6:63 (New American Standard)
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Here is the verse that many will see proves that Jesus was not literal when he said to eat his flesh; that this one verse negates all that Jesus has said previously.

What is "the flesh" that Jesus is speaking of; is it HIS flesh? HIS flesh profits nothing?
Truly, truly His flesh profits MUCH. He became FLESH so that he would be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He died on the cross so that we would be redeemed.

So, what is "the flesh"? It is carnal mindedness.(Read Romans chapter 7)

"Ah, but Jesus said his words are spirit, so this means He was not being literal in saying "Eat my flesh."

NO.

His words are not carnal, so we are not to eat of his natural body.
His words are spirit, and NOT symbolic. "Spirit" does not mean "symbolic".
For God is spirit. Is He then symbolic? No. He is real.
Angels are spirits; are they symbolic? No.

Is the Holy Spirit symbolically God? Is He the Holy Symbol of God?
No, He is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. He IS God.

[See also:
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
1 Corinthians 2:14 ]


*

When Jesus said we must be born again, did he mean CARNALLY born again by entering a woman's womb? No, for this would be reincarnation.

Yet, Jesus was clear that we must be TRULY and REALLY born again of the spirit.
NOT symbolically born again, but spiritually born again.

John 6:64-65 (New American Standard)
"But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Yes, we are to believe Him. (See verse 29 again.)
And read what He said between verses 29 and 65.
]

John 6:66 (New American Standard)
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

Did they leave him because they knew he was speaking symbolically of eating his flesh (which would mean to assault him?) No.
Did He yell for them to come back so he could explain his "symbolic" words? NO.
He didn't change his words. He had truly, truly spoken of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but not in the carnal way that some believed. And when they would not believe him, they left.

John 6:67-69 (New American Standard)
So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
"We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."

Did Simon Peter say he understood Jesus' words that they must eat his body and drink his blood? No.

Simon Peter declared that they have believed Jesus.

Believing without fully understanding the "how".
That's called FAITH.

John 6:70-71 (New American Standard)
Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"
Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

Why would Judas betray Jesus? Because he did not believe Jesus, as Simon Peter and the others did believe.

**

The question should not be " How can He give us His flesh to eat?" but rather "Do you believe Him when He said we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood?"

************

Recommended reading:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a78.htm

http://www.signumcrucis.net/john6.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/gathering/ismeucharist.html

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
.

The Eucharist
Part 3: The Early Church Fathers

"It doesn't matter what the Early Church Fathers said; they were only men."

What are WE?
Why should I believe any man's word on this topic, including my opponents?

If we were arguing in a court of law, if we were arguing in a formal debate, I'd use witnesses.

The Early Church Fathers are witnesses of Christianity. Many were martyred for their beliefs, and I will not allow them to be silenced NOW, by a mere quip.
If my opponent does not like the witnesses' testimonies, then let my opponent cross examine by supplying contemporaries of the Early Church Fathers who have argued against the beliefs of my witnesses.

*

My first witness is the third Bishop of Antioch, who was a pupil of the Apostle John, and was appointed as Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Simon Peter.

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch ("Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.)

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."
(Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D)

*

My second witness is Justin Martyr, a philosopher before he was a Christian, who took it upon himself to write of the beliefs and customs of Christians to the Roman Emperor, a philosopher.

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"
Justin Martyr, "First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

*

My third witness is Iranaeus, Christian missionary to Gallia, in the colony called Lugdunum, modern Lyons, France.
Bishop Iranaeus of Lugdunum, student of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna who was last direct student of the Apostles.

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?"
(Iranaeus, Against Heresies [A.D. 189]).

"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup his blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the body of the Lord and by his blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly...
(Iranaeus, Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

*

I have presented three witnesses of the Early Church. There are more.

Let my opponent find contemporaries of these Early Church Fathers to refute their belief in the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

**********

Recommended reading:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num34.htm

Recommended purchase:

"Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words" by Rod Bennett
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...9248532/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-9278518-9388051 .

Part 4 was never written. But it would have been "Transubstantiation".

I have written on the subject a little and here is what would have been included in my part 4. Or maybe it would have been part of Part 5: Substance and Accidents?

*********Take a sheet of scratch paper and draw a line vertically down the middle so that you have two equal sized columns.

At the top of the left side write "Substance" and at the top of the right side write "Accidents".

(Now in this example/model/analogy, let us say that the piece of paper is "bread", the wafer which will be used at the Catholic Mass.)

Now, wave your paper in the air and say "This is a piece of bread." And you are correct.

Ok. In the "accidents" column of your bread, write what you perceive.
It's round.
It's white.
It doesn't have any real taste, like a rice cake. (You have licked the wafer to determine what kind of taste it has and there isn't any.
It's not sweet... there's no sugar coating.
It's not salty or spicy.
It's opaque. (You hold it up to a light and can see some light coming through the wafer.)

Ok, now some questions for you.
Is that piece of paper bread because it is round? No, it's just shaped that way. It could have been shaped as a square and still have been bread.
Is it bread because it's white? No, it could have been dyed any color and still have been bread.

And the lack of taste is not what makes it bread either. Spices could have been added for there to be tasted and the spices wouldn't have made it bread either.
And seeing through it doesn't make it bread; it could have been thicker and no light able to get in, and still be bread.

The "Accidents" don't make the bread bread. The "accidents" describe this particualr piece of bread, but it would be bread with other "accidents" too.

Why? Because of the left column "Substance".

In the substance column write "bread".

Now, forgive this crude model of mine, readers. (As St. Patrick used a shamrock as his model.)

Now, for this crude model, take your "bread" paper and rip it in two vertically, separating the "Substance" (bread) from the "Accidents" (round, white, doesn't have any real taste, not sweet, ...)

Throw away your "Substance" half. Go ahead,and crumble it into a ball shape and pitch it.

JESUS is now with the "Accidents" column in your hand. HE IS THE "SUBSTANCE".

That is Transubstantiation. "change of substance"

****

Another model, for the readers.

When you were two years old. You were you. Not because of the "accidents": (you are so cute. Look at those fat little cheeks, you can walk, you ride a tricycle, you can say "Mama" and "Dada", you wet your diapers...)

You are you because... you are YOU. Your 'substance".

Now you are older. You have hair growing on your private area. That's an "accident" but it doesn't make you YOU.
And you're close to 6 feet tall. And you have all your teeth, and you can run. You can write.

Was the two year old "You"? And are you now "You"? Yes, because while the "accidents" have changed over time the "substance" has not.

***************

After typing all that I could have saved myself the typing time by doing a web search and putting it on the post. Oh well. Here is what I found at this very moment by searching "Transubstantiation Accidents Substance".
http://www.oloswestriver.org/transubstantiation.htm

St. Aquinas said " "Praestet fides supplementum, sensuum defectui." (Faith supplies what the senses cannot perceive)

****************
****************

EDIT IN NOVEMEBER TO ADD A LINK.
This is Karl Keating's article.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0003.html

It was my pleasure to share this.

nd, Michelle, I still have my other version of the John 6 post with the emphasis on "literally".
Just in case it's needed again.

Hoonbaba, and all.

Yes, absolutely, take it, spread it, copy it, etc.

It's all for Him.

Mephster said:

I am not quite certain that the Aristotelian distinction of accident/substance is still properly the Church's explanation of the Eucharist. I read somewhere that it isn't.........................

I understand the distinction, but I am not convinced its the explanation given officially by the Church....

I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Mephster,
The Peace of Christ be with you.

It doesn't really matter to me what the official Church explanation is. How can man properly explain the workings of the Almighty?

I'm glad to have an explanation, and my reason for writing that bit on the paper was to explain "accidents" and "substance", as has been defined in the past. But, my faith isn't hinged on the Aristotle philosophical brainiac stuff.

***

The bread and the wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.
How is this possible?
Holy Scripture: Jesus said so. (see my "Part 1" and "Part 2".)
Holy Tradition: The Church that He built affirms what He said. ("Part 3")
The Successor of Peter, John Paul II, affirms it.